You have my vote.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Should I replace George as co-owner?
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:39:45 -0700
Dear SftP list members,
If you approve, I am willing to take on the task of list "co-owner."
George Salzman, who did so much to found this list and increase its
membership has asked twice now to be relieved of the burden as "co- owner,"
which means, in essence moderator. I am grateful he has reinstated Michael
Balter, though I was critical of the way he removed him in the first place.
A while ago, in response to George's first request, I offered to be
moderator, but most who responded did not want a moderator. In the light of
that, and subsequent events, I want to make clear that I would try to avoid
censorship of any sort, unless a clear consensus forms that someone is
doing great damage to the list. The only exception would be clear
I am forwarding my original moderation guidelines unchanged, but want to
make clear these would only be guidelines, not rules. If I note violations,
I would suggest to the violator(s) that maybe they could modify their
posting habits accordingly. I would be open to further suggestions as to
how to improve these guidelines, of course.
Herb Fox is willing to be a more passive (yet) co-owner, ready to jump in
if I flag overmuch.
Anyone else who wishes to be a candidate should let us all know.
Begin forwarded message:
>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: June 5, 2007 11:56:45 AM PDT
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <SCIENCE-FOR-THE-
>[log in to unmask]>
>I am willing to be one of several people taking turns moderating, but I
>would rather start my turn in about three weeks.
>Here are the ground rules I would propose to use:
>1. A maximum of four posts per person per day, of which no more than two
>can be on the same topic or thread. (This will allow for the Phil's posts
>2. Respect for other's viewpoints in replies. If one can find no basis for
>respect, either one is very far out on a limb or enough others will feel
>the same that no reply is required.
>3. Germaneness to the list. Does this post have to do with science? Does
>it have a connection with a left perspective, loosely defined?
>4. Originality. Does the post say something that has not been said within
>the last couple of months, at the very least?
>5. Some respect for the intelligence and knowledge of the average group
>member in each post.
>6. No blanket condemnations or personal attacks.
>7. No posts whose point is to argue that one's particular version of
>leftism is better than someone else's.
>8. An urge that everyone exercise self-restraint. Despite the limits of
>four post per day, most people should post far fewer, probably no more
>than one every few days.
>9. Moderators should encourage the practice that each post should try to
>offer a constructive alternative to what is being criticized, for example
>a sounder policy about vaccinations or how drug innovation should properly
>10. Moderators should encourage the practice of humility in the form of
>posts. It is an open question as to what would truly constitute "science
>for the people" or even how to bring about a better, fairer world. We have
>more questions than answers, and that is appropriate to acknowledge.
>If no one else is willing to co-moderate, I would urge everyone to try to
>follow these suggestions (perhaps a smodified by others) for the time
>(In the meantime, for those who find the last few days entertaining, I
>suggest somene start a new list:Vituperation for the People. Each post
>would at least have to explain why the poster deserves to be on that list
>but someone else does not. )
Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!